Final Words

If you were looking for a changing of the guard today it's just not going to happen. Phenom is, clock for clock, slower than Core 2 and the chips aren't yet yielding well enough to boost clock speeds above what Intel is capable of. While AMD just introduced its first 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz quad-core CPUs today, Intel previewed its first 3.2GHz quad-core chips. We were expecting Intel to retain the high end performance crown, but also expected AMD to chip away at the lower end of the quad-core market - today's launch confirms that Intel is still the king of the quad-core market.

As we've seen from our mainstream CPU comparisons however, all of this could change with some clever pricing - something AMD seems to have forgone with its Phenom launch.

Phenom manages to fill a major gap in AMD's desktop CPU product lineup: the company can now offer quad-core CPUs. And with the needed updates to the K8 architecture AMD is now competitive in some areas that it sorely needed improving in. Windows Media and x264 encoding are both strong points of the Phenom architecture, making it on par with Intel's quad-core offerings. The same can be said about some games, but at the same time Intel really pulls ahead in our DivX and other game tests.

Inevitably some of these Phenoms will sell, even though Intel is currently faster and offers better overall price-performance (does anyone else feel weird reading that?). Honestly the only reason we can see to purchase a Phenom is if you currently own a Socket-AM2 motherboard; you may not get the same performance as a Core 2 Quad, but it won't cost as much since you should be able to just drop in a Phenom if you have BIOS support.

If you ask AMD, this is platform story; after all, who wouldn't want to combine a Phenom with the 790FX chipset and a pair of Radeon 3850 graphics cards. The problem is that you can pair up 3850s on an Intel chipset just as easily, leaving the biggest benefit to 790FX the ability to run 3 or 4 3850s, which we're not even sure is a good idea yet. There are some auto-overclocking features, but talking about Phenom's overclocking isn't really accenting one of its strong points. The platform sell is a great one to an OEM, but it's simply not compelling enough to the end user - if Phenom were more attractive, things would be different.

To make the CPU more attractive AMD desperately needs to drop the price, and from what we've heard, that will happen in Q1. From what we've seen, AMD needs to be at least 200MHz ahead of Intel in order to remain competitive - that means bringing out a Phenom 9900 that's cheaper than the Q6600, at least. If AMD can do that, it's quite possible that in early 2008 we'll have the first sub-$200 quad-core part as the 9500 drops in price.

Oh and just in case AMD is listening: the Phenom 9600 has no business being here, the extra 100MHz only clutters up the product line. Once the 9700 and 9900 are out let's try and stick to 200MHz increments shall we?

Here's what really frightens us: the way AMD has priced Phenom leaves Intel with a great opportunity to increase prices with Penryn without losing the leadership position. Intel could very well introduce the Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.33GHz) at $269 and still remain quite competitive with Phenom, moving the Q9450 into more expensive waters. Intel has't announced what it's doing with Penryn pricing in Q1, but our fear is that a weak showing from Phenom could result in an upward trend in processor prices. And this is exactly why we needed AMD to be more competitive with Phenom.

It's tough to believe that what we're looking at here is a farewell to the K8. When AMD first released the Athlon 64, its performance was absolutely mind blowing. It kept us from recommending Intel processors for at least 3 years; Phenom's arrival, however, is far more somber. Phenom has a difficult job to do, it needs to keep AMD afloat for the next year. Phenom is much like the solemn relative, visiting during a time of great sorrow within the family; let's hope for AMD's sake that it can lift spirits in the New Year.

Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

122 Comments

View All Comments

  • rhatsaruck - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    On page 4 titled "Socket-AM2+, Not So Positive?" Anand writes:

    Currently, the L3 cache/NB on these chips runs at a fixed frequency that's actually lower than the rest of the CPU frequency: 2.0GHz. We tested Phenoms running from 2.2GHz all the way up to 2.6GHz, and in all cases the L3 cache and North Bridge ran at 2.0GHz.

    What's the performance impact of this limitation? I don't know how to quantify it. It seems like it might have a material effect on performance. Perhaps Anand can re-run his benchmarks at 1.8 and 2.0 GHz to get a sense of the performance boost when this limitation doesn't exist. From this we might be able to determine how much this shortcoming effects performance at speeds greater than 2.0 GHz.
    Reply
  • Iketh - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    My Athlon 4200+ (2.2ghz) overclocks to 2.7ghz stable. Anything passed that and the second core skyrockets too high in temp and fails prime95 torture tests, while the first core has yet to fail ANY tests and runs up to 10 degrees C cooler.

    My point is the individual core overclocking is the only positive I see out of phenom. If i had this ability in my current athlon 4200+, it'd be clocked at 2.7 and 3.2+ easily.
    Reply
  • Omega215D - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    Ahh the old 9700 makes a comeback but too bad it falls a bit below expectations compared to the 9700 GPU by ATI who is now AMD.

    Maybe there's still time to make some tweaks to the processor?
    Reply
  • GlassHouse69 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    well.

    too bad for amd. they are toast it seems.

    if it managed to be as cool and quiet, then I would have gone there on a quad because of price plus they have better and more consistently cheap + featured motherboards.

    sux.

    Well, on that thought, the new 790x motherboards with this actually might be low power when its all set up and done. fx or x I think does relatively the same thing. isnt the chipset supposed to be incredibly low wattage?

    Reply
  • johnsonx - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    Everyone knows AMD processors have always been, and will always be, far superior to the crap from Intel. Any article suggesting otherwise is clear evidence of pro-Intel bias, that indeed you all get weekly checks from Intel for the favorable press. The reality is that most Intel processors really don't even work at all; all the supposed PC's sold with Intel processors secretly use AMD processors instead, but again Intel pays off the companies to say they're Intel Inside. Intel has an endless supply of money because of their unfair business practices and the Magic Money Fairy.
    Reply
  • JumpingJack - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    This is outright kiddin' no one can be that stupid. Reply
  • Bonesdad - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    is that you, Cramitpal??? Reply
  • ESD4300 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    Lol. What a fucking clueless, moronic fanboy Reply
  • strikeback03 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    quote:

    and the company was committed to delivering Phenom before the holiday buying season


    Good idea, but didn't they pick the wrong parts to focus on? I doubt many of these quad-cores are going to find their way into budget systems, which is where they might see significant sales volume. Unless AMD is hoping hype from the Phenom launch will turn into better sales of Athlon X2 systems, it is odd to focus on parts which are high-end for your current line but not in the greater market.
    Reply
  • MrKaz - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

    Well I have seen reports that AMD is expecting o release higher clock speed up to 3.0Ghz.

    Now when Intel releases the X6800 at 2.93Ghz it was already obvious the CPU at max would do 3.06Ghz with model 6900.

    Now AMD with the 9900 at 2.6Ghz, 9800 at 2.5GHz, 9700 at 2.4GHz, ...
    Tell me what model name will AMD use with the 2.7GHz part?
    At least Intel with the 6800 still had the 7xxx, 8xxx, 9xxx.
    Since this is a new product isn’t it strange, unless AMD will kill it soon with Phenom 2, but then again why not release it as Athlon X4?

    I understand the needs of AMD to match the future Intel model numbers, but however it fails miserably since its higher model number fails to meet the performance expectations.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now